Download The Road Less Travelled - University College Dublin

ISSC DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES
THE ROAD LESS TRAVELLED:
OLIGOPOLY AND COMPETITION
POLICY IN GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM
Prof. J. Peter Neary
Peter Neary is a member of the Economics Dept. in UCD, a Research Associate at the
London School of Economics and a Research Fellow at the Centre for Economic Policy
Research, London.
This paper is produced as part of the International Trade and Investment Programme at
ISSC; however the views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ISSC. All errors
and omissions remain those of the author.
ISSC WP 2002/06
THE ROAD LESS TRAVELLED: OLIGOPOLY
AND COMPETITION POLICY IN GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM*
J. Peter Neary
University College Dublin and CEPR
First Draft July 2002
This version September 25, 2002
Abstract
I review previous approaches to modelling oligopoly in general equilibrium, and propose
a new view which in principle overcomes their deficiencies: modelling firms as large in their
own market but small in the economy as a whole. Implementing this approach requires a
tractable specification of preferences. Dixit-Stiglitz preferences (which imply iso-elastic
perceived demand functions) could be used, but "continuum-quadratic" preferences (which
imply linear perceived demand functions) are more convenient. To illustrate their usefulness,
I construct a simple closed-economy model of oligopoly in general equilibrium and derive
some surprising implications for competition policy.
JEL: D50, L13, L40
Keywords: competition policy; Dixit-Stiglitz preferences; general equilibrium; GOLE
(General Oligopolistic Equilibrium); oligopoly
* Prepared for Imperfect Economics: Essays in Honor of Joseph Stiglitz, edited by Richard
Arnott, Bruce Greenwald, Ravi Kanbur and Barry Nalebuff, to be published by MIT Press.
I am grateful to Joe Francois, Henrik Horn, Ravi Kanbur, Lars Persson, Johan Stennek and
Jacques Thisse for valuable discussions and comments. This research is part of the
Globalisation Programme of the Centre for Economic Performance at LSE, funded by the UK
ESRC, and of the International Trade and Investment Programme of the Institute for the Study
of Social Change at University College Dublin.
Address for Correspondence: Department of Economics, University College Dublin, Belfield,
Dublin 4, Ireland; tel.: (+353) 1-716 8344; fax: (+353) 1-283 0068; e-mail:
[email protected]; home page: http://www.ucd.ie/~economic/staff/pneary/neary.htm.
1. Introduction
It is a truth universally acknowledged that product markets are often far from competitive.
Economists have taken two main routes to addressing this fact. At the micro level, the field
of industrial organisation has developed a sophisticated array of models which focus on
strategic interactions between firms in a single market. At the aggregate level, many fields,
including international trade, macroeconomics and growth, have used models of monopolistic
competition to incorporate increasing returns to scale and product differentiation into general
equilibrium. Each of these approaches has contributed enormously to our understanding of
real-world economies. However, each ignores the insights of the other. Models of industrial
organisation typically take factor prices and aggregate income as given, and pay little attention
to interactions between markets. General-equilibrium models of monopolistic competition
typically ignore strategic behaviour by incumbents, and assume a perfectly elastic supply of
identical new firms, ready and able to enter in response to the smallest profit opportunity.
Many important issues could be illuminated by combining these two approaches, in other
words, by modelling oligopoly in general equilibrium. However, progress in this direction
has been held back by a number of related problems. The first is that, if firms are large in
their own market, and if that market constitutes a significant segment of the economy, then
the firms have direct influence on economy-wide variables. Assuming they behave rationally,
they should exploit this influence, taking account of their effect on both aggregate income and
economy-wide factor prices when choosing their output or price. Such behaviour is both
implausible (apart from relatively rare cases where firms have monopsony power in local
factor markets) and difficult to model. Second, large firms influence the cost of living, and
rational shareholders should take this into account in choosing the profit-maximising level of
output or price. This difficulty was first highlighted by Gabszewicz and Vial (1972), who
interpreted it as implying that the predictions of general-equilibrium oligopoly models are
sensitive to the choice of numeraire.
(See also Böhm (1994).)
Finally, Roberts and
Sonnenschein (1977) showed that oligopolistic firms in general equilibrium typically have
reaction functions so badly-behaved that no equilibrium may exist.
These problems have held back the development of tractable models of oligopoly in
general equilibrium. They have even found their way into textbooks. (See for example,
Bhagwati et al. (1998, p. 382) and Kreps (1990, p. 727).) In this paper, I draw on recent
work (Neary (2002a, b, c)) where I argue that they can all be avoided in a simple way. This
is to allow firms to be "large" in their own sector, but to require them to be "small" in the
economy as a whole. Technically, the key to doing this is to assume a continuum of sectors,
each with a small number of firms. (In fact, any reasonably large number of sectors would
suffice, but it is much easier to work with the continuum case than with a large finite number
of sectors.) Just as in models of perfect or monopolistic competition, firms cannot influence
national income or factor prices and so take them as given. Since the output of any one
sector is infinitesimal relative to national output, maximisation of profits leads to the same
real allocation irrespective of how they are deflated. Finally, with income effects absent for
any one sector, reaction functions are more likely to be well-behaved, and existence of
equilibrium is no more problematic than it is in partial equilibrium.
The purpose of this paper is to put this modelling strategy in context, and to consider its
implications for competition policy in a closed economy. In Section 2 I review the literature
on oligopoly in general equilibrium, a tiny one compared to the huge number of papers on
either oligopoly in partial equilibrium or monopolistic competition in general equilibrium.
Section 3 addresses a key element in implementing my approach, the specification of
preferences. Section 4 presents a simple model of oligopoly in general equilibrium and
derives some surprising implications for competition policy. Section 5 shows that analogous
2
results also apply in a free-entry model of monopolistic competition which is dual to the
oligopoly model of Section 4.
2. Alternative Approaches
A variety of approaches has been taken to resolving the difficulties with embedding
oligopoly in general equilibrium which I have highlighted. One strand of literature ignores
them, and assumes that the partial equilibrium oligopoly first-order condition, pi (1−αi /ε)=ci ,
continues to apply in general equilibrium, even though firms are large relative to the economy
as a whole. (Here αi is the market share of firm i under Cournot competition, and ε is the
price-elasticity of demand.) For example, Batra (1972) explored the implications of monopoly
for the two-sector growth model, while Melvin and Warne (1973) and Markusen (1981)
introduced monopoly and oligopoly into the two-sector Heckscher-Ohlin trade model
respectively. This tradition is continued by Ruffin (2002), though he explicitly describes the
typical agent in his model as behaving "schizophrenically, changing price as a producer and
accepting prices as given as a consumer."
One aspect of firms’ schizophrenia in these models is that they ignore their ability to
influence factor prices. A small number of papers has addressed this, explicitly assuming that
firms exercise monopsony power: see Bishop (1966), Feenstra (1980), Markusen and Robson
(1980), and McCulloch and Yellen (1980). Even in simple models, such as when output
prices are fixed by the small open economy assumption, this leads to considerable
complications without yielding much additional insight.
A different tradition is to assume that preferences are quasi-linear, so the utility function
is x0+u(x), where x0 and x are the consumption levels of goods produced under perfect and
oligopolistic competition respectively. The inverse demand curve for x is then independent
3
of income. This approach has been widely used in industrial organisation and related fields.
(See, for example, Dixit (1981), Vives (1985) and Ottaviano et al. (2002).) Models with
quasi-linear preferences are sometimes defended as being general equilibrium. (See for
example Brander and Spencer (1984, p. 198) and Konishi et al. (1990, p. 69).) But most
authors concede that, since all income effects fall on the good produced in the perfectly
competitive sector, and factor prices are typically assumed to be determined in that sector,
quasi-linear preferences provide a secure foundation for partial equilibrium analysis but
nothing more.
Finally, a number of writers face up to the numeraire problem, warts and all. Gabszewicz
and Vial (1972) and Cordella and Gabszewicz (1997) assume that firms are owned by workerproducers, who maximise utility rather than profits. In the same vein, Dierker and Grodal
(1998) assume that firms maximise shareholders’ real wealth, taking account of how their
decisions affect the deflator for nominal wealth.
These papers avoid the problem of
sensitivity to the choice of numeraire. However, their behavioral assumptions are not very
plausible, and the analysis required for even the simplest models of this kind is complex.
Given these difficulties of modelling oligopoly in general equilibrium, much more effort
has been devoted to modelling monopolistic competition.1 This is sometimes defended on the
grounds that models with a fixed number of firms are "short-run" (see for example, Ohyama
(1999, p. 14)), suggesting that free entry is the more general "long-run" case. But a casual
glance at many real-world markets shows that they continue to be dominated by a small
number of firms for long periods of time. A different rationale for monopolistic competition
is that, with profits driven to zero by free entry and exit, the problems noted above seem to
disappear. But as d’Aspremont et al. (1996) pointed out, this is only strictly true if a
continuum of monopolistically competitive firms is assumed.2
4
A number of authors have explored the implications of allowing firms to be large in their
own market but small in the economy. Hart (1982) constructs an "island" economy in which
firms on one island are owned by shareholders on other islands, so avoiding the problems of
an endogenous deflator for profits. Shleifer (1986) and Murphy, Shleifer and Vishny (1989)
assume a large number of sectors, in each of which a monopolist faces a competitive fringe.
Rotemberg and Woodford (1992) construct a dynamic model of implicit collusion between
firms in a large (though finite) number of sectors. However, these papers were not primarily
focused on my goal of integrating the theory of industrial organisation with general
equilibrium analysis. In the remainder of this paper I sketch how this can be done.
3. Preferences
The key technical step in operationalising the approach I advocated in Section 1 is to find
a tractable specification of preferences. An obvious starting point is to assume that utility is
an additively separable function of a continuum of goods:
(1)
This specification could be extended in a number of ways. The measure of integration could
be endogenous rather than fixed, permitting a dynamic version of the model; the sub-utility
functions could vary with z as well as x(z); and they could allow for differentiated products
produced by each firm in sector z. However, in the remainder of the paper it is convenient
to concentrate on (1).
Assume therefore that a representative consumer maximises (1) subject to the budget
constraint:
5
(2)
where I is aggregate income. The inverse demand functions are:
(3)
where λ is the marginal utility of income, the Lagrange multiplier attached to the budget
constraint, normalised by the derivative g′. The key feature of (3) is that, apart from λ, the
demand price of good z depends only on variables pertaining to sector z itself. The marginal
utility of income serves as a "sufficient statistic" for the rest of the economy in each sector.
It is this property of what Browning et al. (1985) call "Frisch demand functions", combined
with the continuum assumption, which allows a consistent theory of oligopoly. In each sector
z, firms take λ as given, but in general equilibrium it is determined endogenously. To solve
for λ, multiply (3) by p(z) and integrate, using (2), to obtain:
(4)
So λ equals a price-weighted mean of the marginal utilities of individual goods, divided by
the (uncentred) variance of prices.
While any additively separable utility function gives the "sufficient statistic" property, the
general form u[x(z)] is not tractable, since the endogenous consumption levels appear on the
right-hand side of (4). Hence we need to consider some special forms for the sub-utility
function. The simplest case is where preferences are Cobb-Douglas:
6
(5)
Here λ is the reciprocal of income, λ=1/I, and the inverse demand functions are unit-elastic,
with β(z) denoting the (infinitesimal) budget share of good z:
(6)
These demand functions are attractively simple or extremely restrictive, depending on your
point of view. In any case, they are inconsistent with profit maximisation by a monopolist.
Alternatively, preferences may take the constant-elasticity-of-substitution form as in Dixit
and Stiglitz (1977):
(7)
Now the inverse demand functions are iso-elastic:
(8)
where the elasticity of demand η is also the elasticity of substitution between every pair of
goods; while λ is an inverse Cobb-Douglas function of income and the true cost-of-living
index P:
(9)
These demand functions allow convenient solutions in models of monopolistic competition,
where they were first introduced. But in oligopoly they have unattractive implications:
outputs are often strategic complements in Cournot competition, and reaction functions may
be non-monotonic.
7
Finally, as in Neary (2002c), consider the case where each sub-utility function is
quadratic:
(10)
Now the inverse demand functions and the marginal utility of income are:
(11)
where µp is the mean of prices and we have already defined σ2p as their (uncentred) variance.
Hence, a rise in income, a rise in the (uncentred) variance of prices, or a fall in the mean of
prices, all reduce λ and so shift the demand function for each good outwards. However, from
the perspective of firms, λ is an exogenous variable over which they have no control. While
(11) is the true demand curve, the perceived demand curve is linear, as in Negishi (1961),
since firms treat λ as constant. Oligopoly models with linear demand functions are easy to
solve in partial equilibrium, which allows us to construct a tractable but consistent model of
oligopoly in general equilibrium.
4. Competition Policy in General Oligopolistic Equilibrium
The specification of preferences discussed in the last section could be combined with any
one of a huge variety of assumptions about the supply side of the economy. For simplicity
I adopt here probably the simplest possible approach. It combines Cournot competition and
a given number n of firms in each sector with a Ricardian specification of technology and
factor markets. The first-order condition for a typical firm in sector z is: p(z)−c(z)=by(z)/λ.
Solving for equilibrium output:
8
(12)
The unit cost of production in each sector, c(z), equals the economy-wide wage rate, w, times
the sector’s labour requirement per unit output, denoted by α(z): c(z)=wα(z). The equilibrium
condition in the labour market requires that the exogenous labour supply L equal the total
demand for labour from all sectors:
(13)
Inspecting equations (12) and (13) shows that they are homogeneous of degree zero in two
nominal variables, the wage rate w and the inverse of the marginal utility of income, λ−1. As
is normal in real models, the absolute values of these variables are indeterminate, and, indeed,
uninteresting. Hence we can choose an arbitrary numeraire. (This will be a true numeraire:
unlike the cases discussed in Section 2, the choice of numeraire has no implications for the
model’s behaviour.) It is most convenient to choose utility itself as numeraire, so that λ is
unity by choice of units.
To solve the model, evaluate the integral in (13), using (12):
(14)
µ and σ2 denote the first and second moments of the technology distribution:
(15)
For later use, note that the variance v2 of the technology distribution is given by v2 = σ2−µ2.
A special case, which serves as a convenient benchmark, is the featureless economy, where
all sectors have the same technology parameter α0: the variance v2 is zero, and so σ = µ = α0.
9
The first issue we want to examine is the effect of competition policy (in the sense of an
increase in the number of firms n in all sectors) on the functional distribution of income.
National income I, measured in utility units, equals the sum of wages wL and total profits Π:
(16)
To evaluate total profits, note that profits in each sector π(z) equal [p(z)−c(z)]y(z). Using the
first-order condition and equation (12) gives:
(17)
I show in the Appendix that this can be written in terms of parameters as follows:
(18)
From (14), the wage rate w is strictly increasing in n; while from (18) total profits are strictly
decreasing in n. Hence it follows that:
Result 1: A rise in n raises the share of wages in national income.
Thus competition policy has the expected effect on income distribution.
Next, we want to determine the effects of competition policy on welfare. Substituting the
direct demand functions implied by (11) into the utility function (1) and (10), gives the
indirect utility function (ignoring a constant):
(19)
To calculate the variance of the distribution of prices, we can use the Cournot equilibrium
10
price formula, p(z)=[a+nc(z)]/(n+1). Squaring and integrating yields:
(20)
Substituting from (14) for w, this becomes (as shown in the Appendix):
(21)
This is clearly decreasing, but not strictly so, in the number of firms. Hence:
Result 2: An increase in n raises welfare, strictly so if v2>0.
Since there are no other distortions in the model, we would expect this to be so. However,
the result is not strict, unlike Result 1, which has a surprising implication:
Corollary: In the featureless economy, competition policy has no effect on welfare:
dŨ/dn=0.
Inducing entry by more firms in all sectors raises the demand for labour. But since the
aggregate labour supply constraint is binding, this merely redistributes income from profits
to wages without any gains in efficiency.
This result should not be seen as an argument against activism in competition policy. The
model is far too stylised to provide a basis for policy-making. In the realistic case where
sectors are heterogeneous, the welfare costs of oligopoly implied by (21) may be greater than
those implied by partial-equilibrium calculations in the tradition of Harberger (1954). Rather,
the result should be seen as an extreme case which brings out the importance of a general-
11
equilibrium perspective. It was clearly stated by Lerner (1933-34), who also conjectured that
a suitable measure of the economy-wide degree of monopoly is the standard deviation of the
"degree of monopoly" (i.e., the price-cost margin) across all sectors. Equation (21) confirms
Lerner’s intuition, and shows how it relates to the underlying structural parameters in the
economy.
Finally, consider the effects of an increase in the technology variance, v2, at constant µ.
I show in the Appendix that equations (14), (18) and (21) imply:
Result 3: A mean-preserving spread in the technology distribution raises aggregate
welfare but lowers the share of wages in national income.
So aggregate welfare and the share of wages need not move together.
5. Competition Policy in Monopolistic Competition
Competition policy was modelled in the previous section as an exogenous increase in the
number of firms in each sector of the economy. In this section I show that the same results
go through if instead the fixed costs of operating a firm are taken as parametric, and entry
of new firms is assumed to be free. The model therefore becomes one of monopolistic
competition rather than of oligopoly.
It would be possible to assume that firms’ fixed costs vary in some systematic way with
z. However, there is no basis for doing this within the model, so assume instead that they
take a constant value f in all sectors. Hence the equilibrium condition for free entry in sector
z is:
12
(22)
We can solve this for the equilibrium output of each firm and use (12) to solve for the
equilibrium number of firms in sector z (ignoring the integer constraint):
(23)
As in models of monopolistic competition based on Dixit-Stiglitz preferences, the equilibrium
size of each firm depends only on cost and taste parameters. Adjustment to shocks in other
parameters comes about solely through changes in the number of firms.
We can now solve for the equilibrium wage. As in the previous section, we integrate the
labour-market equilibrium condition (13). The difference is that now the number of firms in
each sector and not the output of each varies with z. This yields:
(24)
Comparing this with equation (14) in the last section, it is clear that a reduction in fixed costs
in monopolistic competition has a similar effect on the equilibrium wage as an increase in the
number of firms in oligopoly: both tend to raise w. Moreover, the competitive limits of the
two models (as f approaches zero and n approaches infinity, respectively) are identical.
To solve for welfare, use the first-order condition and the free-entry condition (22) to
solve for the equilibrium price in sector z:
(25)
Note that this implies a fixed absolute price-cost margin, whereas in monopolistic competition
with Dixit-Stiglitz preferences, the relative price-cost margin is fixed. From (25), I show in
the Appendix that the variance of prices equals:
13
(26)
This is clearly increasing (but not strictly so) in the fixed cost of production. Hence we can
conclude:
Result 4: A fall in f raises welfare, strictly so provided v2>0.
The interpretation of this result is identical to that of Result 2 in the previous section.
Competition policy has a similar effect on welfare under monopolistic competition as it has
under oligopoly: welfare cannot fall, and must increase provided the variance of the
technology distribution is strictly positive.
6. Conclusion
In this paper I reviewed previous approaches to modelling oligopoly in general
equilibrium, and drew on Neary (2002c) to propose a new view which in principle overcomes
their deficiencies: modelling firms as large in their own market but small in the economy as
a whole. On the one hand, firms face a small number of local competitors, so they have an
incentive to compete strategically against them in the manner familiar from the theory of
industrial organisation. On the other hand, there is a continuum of sectors, so firms cannot
influence economy-wide variables such as national income and factor prices. Furthermore,
provided all profits are returned costlessly to the aggregate household, the implications of
profit maximisation are independent of tastes and of the normalisation rule for prices. Hence,
the approach avoids all the problems which have bedeviled previous studies of oligopoly in
general equilibrium.
14
Implementing this approach requires a tractable specification of preferences. In principle,
any form of additively separable preferences could be used, since they share the convenient
property that the demand facing each sector depends only on variables pertaining to that
sector and on the economy-wide marginal utility of income. For example, Dixit-Stiglitz
preferences (which imply iso-elastic perceived demand functions) could be used. However,
I have chosen to work instead with "continuum-quadratic" preferences (which imply linear
perceived demand functions), since they guarantee existence and uniqueness of equilibrium
at the sectoral level, and hence allow convenient aggregation across sectors.
To illustrate my proposed approach, I constructed a simple model of oligopoly in general
equilibrium and used it to derive some surprising implications for competition policy. In
particular, I showed that the desirability of increasing competition depends crucially on the
distribution of what Lerner (1933-34) called the "degree of monopoly" across sectors. While
some authors, such as Francois and Horn (1998), have recognised that competition policy
should take account of general equilibrium constraints, a satisfactory analytic framework in
which to do so has not been available so far.
Of course, competition policy is modelled here in an extremely simple way: a parametric
increase in the number of firms in Section 4, or a parametric reduction in the fixed costs of
operating a firm in Section 5. In other respects too this paper has clearly only scratched the
surface of the new approach I have proposed. Even if continuum-quadratic preferences are
retained, a wide range of alternative assumptions about market structure, firm behaviour and
the workings of factor markets awaits exploration. For example, a richer theory of firm
behaviour should allow for strategic entry and entry-deterrence, since the assumption in
Section 4 that the number of firms in all sectors is exogenous is highly artificial. However,
the standard assumption of completely free entry in all sectors is just as unrealistic. I hope
15
I have suggested the potential gains from exploring alternatives to the free-entry competitive
paradigm, while still retaining a general-equilibrium perspective.
16
Appendix
Proof of Result 1: To evaluate total profits, substitute for w from (14) into the expression
in brackets in (17) and rewrite as a difference in squares:
(27)
Substituting back into (17) gives the expression for profits in (18).
Proof of Result 2: To evaluate the level of welfare, proceed as in the proof of Result 1:
(28)
Substituting back into (20) gives (21).
Proof of Result 3: To establish how v2 affects welfare, differentiate (21):
(29)
This is negative, and so welfare in increasing in v2, provided w in (14) is positive. The effect
of v2 on wages is negative, by inspection of (14). Finally, from (18), the effect on profits is:
17
(30)
Proof of Result 4: To evaluate the variance of prices, square and integrate (25) and then
proceed as in the proofs of Results 1 and 2:
(31)
which leads to (26).
18
Endnotes
1
I follow most of the literature in using "imperfect competition" to denote any type of market
structure other than perfect competition, and "monopolistic competition" to refer to the
Chamberlin large-group case, where entry and exit are free. Not all writers use the terms in
this way. For example, "monopolistic competition" in Roberts and Sonnenschein (1977)
refers to models with a fixed number of firms, which I prefer to describe as oligopoly models.
2
Ironically, Dixit and Stiglitz adopted this assumption in an early draft of their 1977 paper,
but dropped it from the published version at the request of a referee. See Brakman and
Heijdra (2002).
19
References
Batra, Raveendra. "Monopoly theory in general equilibrium and the two-sector model of
economic growth." Journal of Economic Theory 4 (1972): 355-71
Bhagwati, Jagdish N., Arvind Panagariya and T.N. Srinivasan. Lectures on International
Trade: Second Edition. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998
Bishop, Robert L. "Monopoly under general equilibrium: Comment." Quarterly Journal
of Economics 80 (1966): 652-9
Brakman, Steven and Ben J. Heijdra (eds.). The Monopolistic Competition Revolution
After Twenty-Five Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002
Brander, James A. and Barbara Spencer. "Tariff protection and imperfect competition."
in H. Kierzkowski (ed.) Monopolistic Competition and International Trade.
Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1984, 194-206
Browning, Martin, Angus Deaton and Margaret Irish. "A profitable approach to labor
supply and commodity demands over the life-cycle." Econometrica 53 (1985): 503-43
Cordella, Tito and Jean Jaskold Gabszewicz. "Comparative advantage under oligopoly."
Journal of International Economics 43 (1997): 333-46
d’Aspremont, Claude, Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira and Louis-André Gérard-Varet. "On
the Dixit-Stiglitz model of monopolistic competition." American Economic Review 86 (1996):
623-29
Dierker, Egbert and Birgit Grodal. "Modelling policy issues in a world of imperfect
competition." Scandinavian Journal of Economics 100 (1998): 153-79
Dixit, Avinash K. "The role of investment in entry deterrence." Economic Journal 90
(1981): 95-106
____ and Joseph E. Stiglitz. "Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity."
20
American Economic Review 67 (1977): 297-308
Feenstra, Robert C. "Monopsony distortions in an open economy: A theoretical analysis."
Journal of International Economics 10 (1980): 213-35.
Francois, Joseph F. and Henrik Horn. "Competition policy in an open economy."
Discussion Paper 98-06, Center for International Economic Studies, University of Adelaide,
1998
Gabszewicz, Jean Jaskold and Jean-Philippe Vial. "Oligopoly à la Cournot in a general
equilibrium analysis." Journal of Economic Theory 4 (1972): 381-400
Harberger, Arnold. "Monopoly and resource allocation." American Economic Review
(Papers and Proceedings) 44 (1954): 77-87
Hart, Oliver. "A model of imperfect competition with Keynesian features." Quarterly
Journal of Economics 97 (1982): 109-138
Konishi, Hideki, Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara and Kotaro Suzumura. "Oligopolistic
competition and economic welfare: A general equilibrium analysis of entry regulation and taxsubsidy schemes." Journal of Public Economics 42 (1990): 67-88
Kreps, David. A Course in Microeconomic Theory. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester
Wheatsheaf, 1990
Lerner, Abba P. "The concept of monopoly and the measurement of monopoly power."
Review of Economic Studies 1 (1933-34): 157-75
Markusen James R. "Trade and the gains from trade with imperfect competition." Journal
of International Economics 11 (1981): 531-51
____ and Arthur Robson. "Simple general equilibrium and trade with a monopsonized
sector." Canadian Journal of Economics 3 (1980): 389-402
McCulloch, Rachel and Janet L. Yellen. "Factor market monopsony and the allocation
21
of resources." Journal of International Economics 10 (1980): 237-48
Melvin, James R. and Robert D. Warne. "Monopoly and the theory of international trade."
Journal of International Economics 3 (1973): 117-34
Murphy, Kevin M., Andrei Shleifer and Robert V. Vishny. "The big push." Journal of
Political Economy 97 (1989): 1003-1026
Neary, J. Peter. "Competition, trade and wages." in D. Greenaway, R. Upward and K.
Wakelin (eds.): Trade, Migration, Investment and Labour Market Adjustment, London:
Macmillan, 2002a, 28-45
____ . "Foreign competition and wage inequality." Review of International Economics 10
(2002b): 680-93
____ . "International trade in general oligopolistic equilibrium." University College
Dublin, mimeo., 2002c
Negishi, Takashi. "Monopolistic competition and general equilibrium." Review of
Economic Studies 28 (1961): 196-201
Ohyama, Michihiro. "Market, trade and welfare in general equilibrium." Japanese
Economic Review 50 (1999): 1-24
Ottaviano, Gianmarco, Takatoshi Tabuchi and Jacques-François Thisse. "Agglomeration
and trade revisited." International Economic Review 43 (2002): 409-35
Roberts, John and Hugo Sonnenschein. "On the foundations of the theory of monopolistic
competition." Econometrica 45 (1977): 101-113
Rotemberg, Jerome and Michael Woodford. "Oligopolistic pricing and the effects of
aggregate demand on economic activity." Journal of Political Economy 100 (1992): 11531207
Ruffin, Roy J. "Oligopoly and trade: What, how much and for whom?" Journal of
22
International Economics (forthcoming), 2002
Shleifer, Andrei. "Implementation cycles." Journal of Political Economy 94 (1986): 11631190
Vives, Xavier. "On the efficiency of Bertrand and Cournot equilibria with product
differentiation." Journal of Economic Theory 36 (1985): 166-75
23